Right, so Gary Lineker quits the BBC, though few people I imagine having praised Lineker for his outspokenness on the matter of Israel and Gaza, a rare voice from the BBC in doing so as he has been and arguably being a former footballer, having done very well out of that I daresay, many at the BBC might not have the security to be able to do that knowing that it likely risked their jobs, so when every rancid UK news outlet going seemingly cheers the fact he has quit because he did something they could definitely point to as wrong, it smacks far more of the BBC being handed the opportunity to push Lineker out of the door, but giving him the option of walking rather than being sacked.
It's given the Israel Lobbyists the chance to cry foul and play the victim card once again, though the hypocrisy doesn’t take much effort to prove, its had Zionists lambasting Lineker for talking about things he doesn’t understand, but we’re all observers of this genocide, we all see every day in our social media feeds what is happening and so much of that, that Lineker highlights, the BBC itself omits, day after day, their moral cowardice not missed by a lot of us too, their failure to inform us, their failure by their own charter therefore. Lineker made a mistake at the end which he apologised for, but saying sorry never counts does it? The BBC itself owes this country a bigger apology, but by letting Lineker go, it just tells us it isn’t coming and nor is any change from them.
Right, so that was Gary Lineker there talking to Mehdi Hasan and saying what thousands of us have probably told ourselves. We’ve never seen anything like it before, our media having always shielded us in the west from such imagery as we’ve seen in Gaza, what has been done and is still being done to these people by Israel. Most of us watching are not Israeli are not Palestinian are not Jewish or Muslim, but we are human and I would actually argue that we here in the UK, responsible as we are, as this nation is for the creation of Israel in a land that was not ours to give away, we are more than entitled to condemn what has been done as part of our own history as well, even if we are only observing from afar because what we are observing has been a genocide playing out live, in real time for us all to see for the first time ever. I think its important that people abroad, people in the Middle East realise, we in the west have never seen this happen, because media outlets simply don’t show it. Until social media, we didn’t see this sort of stuff.
October 7th, sure, Hamas should be condemned for that incursion and an investigation carried out not by Israel into that is still needed, but it doesn’t excuse what Israel have done since, now conducting an operation to just plain seize Gaza wholesale now, arguably the plan from the beginning, but rescue hostages and defeat Hamas they have failed at and all the more starkly, when both of those were sat on the negotiating table. Its never been about that, it’s only ever been about the land and the displacement of the Palestinian people of Gaza. Instead of saying that though, the BBC calls out and punishes those who actually do instead.
For over 19 months, the world has borne witness to the unrelenting bombardment of Gaza by Israel — a campaign widely described by observers, legal experts, and human rights advocates as a genocide. The devastation, live-streamed in real-time across social media platforms, has left hundreds of thousands of civilians displaced, maimed, or killed. And yet, throughout this humanitarian catastrophe, the BBC’s coverage has remained muted, distorted, or overtly sympathetic to the Israeli narrative. Lineker, as a high-profile media personality with a massive following and unlike the BBC, a moral backbone, emerged as a rare voice calling it out from within the BBC, therefore his was a voice that was increasingly incompatible with the BBC’s editorial culture.
The immediate trigger for Lineker’s departure was a single post on social media that he had shared a video which included an illustration of a rat, which, unbeknownst to him, was an antisemitic trope, it reflects Nazi propaganda against Jews — but it was a mistake he promptly acknowledged and for which he publicly apologised. But of course saying sorry is never enough.
It’s OK for Israel to invoke such stuff though. In 2023 there was an abhorrently genocidal song by Israeli group Ness and Still called Charbu Darbu which contained lyrics referring to Palestinians as rats and Amalek and called for the IDF to eliminate outspoken pro Palestine supporters Bella Hadid, Dua Lipa and Mia Khalifa. Hypocrisy doesn’t get very far does it though does it?
Apologies are never enough, they rarely ever are when it comes to Israel. The mere whiff of criticism toward Israel presented in a way that can be turned back on the person saying or posting and the pariah state or their supporters will paint you as the pariah instead and Lord knows we’ve seen years of this now, even before October 7th. It doesn’t cut through so much now eyes have been opened and people are more openly talking about it and people like Lineker doing that inspires courage in others to say what they are thinking too.
The broader political establishment, pro-Israel lobbies, and a complicit media apparatus still attempt to conflate critique of Israeli policy with antisemitism itself, erasing the vast distinction between the two. Lineker, who had long drawn the ire of the pro-Israel lobby for his outspoken views on Gaza, was, in their eyes, already a marked man. This latest “antisemitism” controversy merely provided the pretext to finally oust him.
The saga surrounding Lineker’s departure is of course all part of a dangerous trend in UK media where despite everything we are seeing on social media and in independent media who aren’t afraid to talk about it, the prioritisation of Zionist sensitivities over humanitarian reality remains.
The BBC’s fixation on the semantics of Lineker’s post — endlessly dissected by media outlets such as The Telegraph or The Spectator — contrasts sharply with its deafening silence over far more serious statements. An example of this would be the recent comments made by Israeli Knesset member Zvi Sukkot on Israel’s Channel 12, Sukkot being a member of Bezalel Smotrich’s Religious Zionism Party. In a chilling moment of televised indifference, Sukkot stated just two days ago in relation to draft legislation that was being discussed on the show and not what Israel was doing in Gaza that the reason for this change in priorities was:
‘Because everyone got used to the idea that you can kill a hundred Gazans in one night, in a war, and nobody in the world cares.’
Wrong, you depraved little minion, but not a whisper of condemnation from the BBC followed to largely inform you all about that. Thankfully its something independent outlet Skwawkbox did.
Why the double standard though? Why does a poorly worded post from a football presenter attract more scrutiny than televised boasting of mass killing at the BBC?
Because the former threatens vested interests. The latter does not.
The structural bias at the BBC is not speculative anymore, it is observable. The composition of its leadership and editorial team reflects a worrying ideological positioning when it comes to coverage of Israel. Robbie Gibb, a member of the BBC’s board, has known affiliations with the Jewish Chronicle, a publication fiercely supportive of Israel and notoriously hostile to Palestinian advocacy. Gibb’s position on the BBC board has long raised questions about the impartiality of the BBC’s reporting.
Raffi Berg, another key figure, currently controls the BBC’s output on everything Israel and Palestine. Here’s an excerpt from The Cradle on this:
‘"This guy's entire job is to water down everything that's too critical of Israel," one former BBC journalist said…
Another BBC journalist said Berg plays a key role in a broader BBC culture of "systematic Israeli propaganda."
"How much power he has is wild," said another journalist.
"There was an extreme fear at the BBC, that if you ever wanted to do anything about Israel or Palestine, editors would say: 'If you want to pitch something, you have to go through Raffi and get his signoff," another journalist explained.
In one case, Berg downplayed Amnesty International's accusation that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Berg chose a headline that stated, "Israel rejects 'fabricated' claims of genocide," to describe the Amnesty report and failed to post the story for 12 hours after it was written to suppress its online reach.’
Berg’s editorial influence has become synonymous with the BBC’s increasingly diluted and equivocal coverage of events in Gaza. This sanitisation of war crimes under the guise of “balanced reporting” as the BBC bleats about ad nauseum has led many to question the corporation’s journalistic integrity.
Given this context, it becomes easier to understand why Lineker had to go. His consistent and high-profile critique of Israel, particularly on social media — where the BBC has long tried to police its presenters’ personal conduct — was incompatible with the editorial orthodoxy being enforced at the highest levels.
Among the most egregious hit-pieces on Lineker though, came from The Spectator, whose contributor Jonathan Sacerdoti wrote that Lineker should “educate himself about the Nazis” — a cynical reframing of an apology already given. Sacerdoti’s role is far from impartial. A former Director of Public Affairs at the Zionist Federation, his writing aligns with that broader agenda: silencing critics of Israel through character assassination and guilt by association. That The Spectator, is chaired by former BBC heavyweight Andrew Neil, ran such a piece is indicative of the revolving door between elite media and ideologically driven commentary.
Meanwhile, the Campaign Against Antisemitism — which has long held Lineker in its crosshairs — capitalised on the controversy to advance their vendetta. Rather than engage in good-faith dialogue about the difference between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, they conflate the two instead.
It is no exaggeration to say that the BBC’s treatment of Lineker exemplifies a moral failing of the highest order. While the mainstream and far too pro Israel media obsesses over one erroneous post which was apologised for, children continue to be killed in Gaza. Entire families are wiped out, hospitals are targeted, and food and medical supplies are deliberately withheld — all in broad daylight, day after day, going unreported far too often.
The BBC is one of the most blatant and we can see why. Instead, the Beeb focuses on policing tone, language, and perceived offense, as if these are greater threats than a literal genocide.
Lineker’s voice, shared by millions, has been one of the few prominent ones in the public eye, echoing what many of us already see: the injustice, the inhumanity, and the moral bankruptcy of silence. Therefore his departure, forced as many will see it, is not just a professional matter; it is a cultural one. It signals to journalists and public figures alike that moral clarity on Palestine is incompatible with institutional longevity — particularly in organizations like the BBC, which appear either too afraid or too complicit to confront Israel’s actions head-on.
Ironically, much of the media commentary following Lineker’s departure has attempted to reframe him — and by extension, his supporters — as naive, radicalised, or misinformed. A particularly condescending piece in The Irish Independent described “men like Lineker” as endlessly pontificating on issues they don’t understand. Yet it is not ignorance that drives public outrage — it is the very opposite. We are not radicalised by propaganda; we are radicalised by reality. The camera doesn’t lie.
We have eyes. We have ears. We see the corpses pulled from rubble. We hear the bombs falling on homes. We do not need The Telegraph, or The Spectator, or even the BBC to tell us what we are witnessing is a crime against humanity. And we certainly don’t need sanctimonious lectures from media elites to remind us how “complicated” it all is. The moral clarity of genocide is not complicated. It is unbearable.
Gary Lineker’s exit from the BBC is not the end of a career — it is the beginning of a reckoning. His departure exposes the rot within British media institutions, the cowardice of journalistic elites, and the brutal effectiveness of pro-Israel lobbying in silencing dissent, because they got their man in the end. But it also ignites a deeper conversation about where we stand as a society.
Will we accept a reality in which criticizing a genocidal war ends up being more controversial than the war itself? Will we allow powerful media organisations to prioritise reputational management over moral responsibility? Will we continue to equate solidarity with Palestine with antisemitism, while ignoring the very real suffering of millions?
Gary Lineker may no longer present Match of the Day, but he has done something far more valuable: he has exposed the price of truth in an age of complicity, and so I offer my full solidarity to him.
Another issue the mainstream media are conspicuously silent on is the matter of RAF Akrotiri and when one of Labour’s own MPs happens to ask a question about whether or not Israel themselves are using it, the request got blocked by her own government. What are they hiding then and why is no mainstream media asking that question? Get all the details of that story in this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks